



s* 'V 

• 5 .V' v 

4,* JV . » a 









% ° A* *' 

- # *o 

>* J? r ^> « 

* *%> '-t 

<^ *»i» 5 V& 

A” *»•*'♦ *> V *" * °„ c> ’ 

^ ^ a 4 \Wa;* v 

,^-V :^%;]rrlg?: <v 

<r. ,o* ^ a, 

* ^ o c °" 0 ♦ A •»-' 

* A , c ° A *' 


^9 

V-~"V V* 

° o & 


>° ’V -, 

0 : ^o * * o > 

<U A _ _ v*. 





. ,H : 

>.*♦ O <b 
* * 1 * * 

^ ♦*.-*»*. * * 

> V • ‘*0 

) V", • lA^S-Hy? • 4 o 

«£v •> <a> <> 

*£+ * \\\SS> h kV 

Aa * * <L** 

*'•«»• «r 


w 


• A ^ -* 

■C.' '■Op. 

4 





4* 


%d* 


o V 


<p rf . 

> V 

* rv A * 

* rp * 

9 I 1 ’ rO. * 





* <£ -0> 

4 ,A 

♦ * - «G 

o 0 " .<^> °o 

* 0 ^ f 


°* *" 
V F * » • ®- C\ 

V/ :^iA c o ^ 

*A * ^\Wm, o' 

.\V< 



* ^ '. 

1 V * I A^ ^ r °*A" ^G & v> 

r\ v o n o 

«T - A * a?/J?7yb ’ v * cs 5 ^w » o 4 ^ A e 

". ^o'^•o 5 : < ^W'. ^.' 

; j- 0 ^. ^fllis^ v^W; j. 0 ^ : 

* f\ 4&+ ♦mWnv % Cw> «• -<■".- y/Udr -v - ^ r> ■ 

•’/ \\„ 

* ^ «■ J<\ :; ; v : /k^ <A * 

imsMAi 'W 

« c, 1 ’ 0 ^. • i '' i . ' 4 '- 








• S s A *o. ** A 

. i»® r\> o*o '^- k 

vJ * 

»K •"i *>- ‘^0 V 

: ^ ^ ! 





1 

. \;^°* y 



\ r ^ ♦ A " 

#■ ^ o< 



* ^ ^ *- 


> A> 


♦' v^ ^ 

4 ,.r V. 


0 V -o 



(A \i> 

• \0 v*. 

^ ov////j^r ^ » ^ 8 K Kf§S^ vs/ ° 

o +2&UrJ*+* r\ ^ ' 

Q ^ G C ^ ^ O N 0 ^ , G‘ 

•« V a •V8fi&*r. ^ / 




V” .*!••-» '(?, a0" V F ^ Y *°- 


• 0 r'_ A 


’vP<i 


/v^> * 

♦ ^V ^ ° 0 




A ' <b <0 

% -o J* ^j^/rpz^ %r G° 


,. r . ^ ^ *%. ^ 



^ 0 











O +Sr K *r~'% ’a ^ • is » * -or 

, nNa % '••■*<> <x '<> . A * 0^ 

0 0 ‘ .. * 4 O \ & _ L f A X> 



ip v% 

* <z p^yy//D^p r *» v * 

O r\ * 

v *"’• .*°... «♦ 



•<■ V ^ .* 

°, ^ v 1 « 


O \<v _ 

° ^rv 

- \\\\UI_U/// X 

. A 'V J . 

<, '••»** A ^> V--,.- A 

V* 1 ' * » ■** -C V o'” 0 ., ^ A t ,„ '<{. 

*U A 


° l 



A °^ 

. r\ * ^oM.WVCs 1 ' tv > * 

.. °+*''•' J* y % *.., 

v ‘O, o ,0 V , s • * > '•'V . \ v <p 

« *P* A t^wP&fcA. ^, V o. 


16 A ^rv 

♦ A' ^ * 

A V * 





o TVs * A 



* © 


0 




'p- 

- A 

- O A t 
>»■ <N ♦ 

vt \V , 'rr *v 

• o V 

•‘ *•“ 'V 

A* *P 

•’ / ^ % 

• "V, A * y<Rm*sr. *, a, 

• ^ :ii: A 

• O K/^PP.XR * 


* 

,• A’V ° 

* ^ '4 <> 

■'*>•** <(y 

•■".% /.-• 

• < ^ *» v* cr 

0 v*. * ^ * < o 

%° kV ^ 

0* 


■w 


s 









vn 1 


o ^T'-'i* A 


* o 




l /1 



°* o. «0’ - * ° * 


a \ S' w • * 

V^ . t i « 

I* Wt ^ 





^1 



0 0 °_" • -» 'O 


'* ^ V y * *_ 



'"o 

-, ° A / 

v> VX 4 A S 

* x? V 
v* >P 'Kp » 

^ ^ tf 1 

A V'*.. 

cv .0 . 4 ’ * ^ 

. ^ ,A 
^ cy * 

° ^v • 

o L (//'/%'ZK''^ * A 'J' 

A V ^ .v 

^ ^ ,0^ 0 




° A 



© 

© 

«/> 

Xa |p 

■" a ... ^'*•«•■ ^ -.,, 

V % V ,■•«.. CV. 

*A. \^™’a ^’'«•*** A 

0 V 0 ° ° * O rtV oWo 



^ A 





o,. *».!•’ i.0 




































































fhcv- 1 

T8 


Centennial Celebration of American Independence. 


SPEECH 


OF 

✓ 

HON. J. RANDOLPH TUCKER, 


OF VIRGINIA, 


IN THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 









SPEECH 

• OF 

HON. JOHN RANDOLPH TUCKER. 


The House, as in Committee of the "Whole, haring under consideration the bill 
(H. R. No. 514) relating to the centennial celebration of American Independence— 

Mr. TUCKER said: 

Mr. Chairman : I am entirely conscious that in opposing this hill 
I shall meet cavils from gentlemen all around me and on the other 
side of this Hall at my wisdom, liberality, and patriotism. But how¬ 
ever much I might be depressed by this view, I am cheered by the 
reflection that the path of duty lying before me in respect to this cen¬ 
tennial bill is as clear as it ever was in regard to any question brought 
to my consideration. 

Mr. Chairman, what do you propose to celebrate in this centennial 
year ? Do you propose to have a material exhibition only, or an ex¬ 
hibition worthy of the great moral principles which are illustrated by 
the anniversary of our independence ? 

If I mistake not, three great principles underlie or are involved in 
the Declaration of Independence: the principle of individual liberty, 
the principle of local government in its struggle against centralized 
power, and the exemption of the American destiny from the controll¬ 
ing influence of European polity. I will cordially unite with gentle¬ 
men anywhere, North or South, East or West, in celebrating the cen¬ 
tennial anniversary in the maintenance and illustration of these three 
principles, so vital and essential to the full success of our republican 
institutions. 

Let me feel that the liberty of the citizen is secured against des¬ 
potic power; let me be assured that the freedom and independent 
action, the autonomy of the States, as Chief Justice Chase has ex¬ 
pressed it, is well guarded against the arbitrary and usurping exercise 
of Federal authority; let me see that American destiny is guided alone 
by its own polity and free from the interference and intrusion of 
European counsels; and then indeed, sir, we may have a real centen¬ 
nial anniversary! 

The gentleman who preceded me [Mr. Frye] has said that the Con¬ 
stitution and constitutional questions are an enigma to him. I am 
not surprised at it, looking at his mode of interpreting it. Any gen¬ 
tleman who will ever raise a constitutional question after this bill 
shall have passed upon the interpretation adopted to sustain its con¬ 
stitutionality, will really be worthy of commiseration. 

I say, sir, that the spirit of the centennial is obedience to the Constitution. 
And when gentlemen tell me that the centennial exhibition is to be a 
manifestation of the inventive power of the American mind, I answer 
that the greatest invention of American genius has been left out of 
view entirely. And what is that ? The greatest invention of Amer- 





6 


pense of inviting him and bringing him here. Are not those expendi¬ 
tures within reasonable and suitable limits contained in the grant of 
the national powers, to the exercise of which with suitable dignity 
those expenditures are necessary? And is not the celebration of the 
centennial once in a hundred years one of its properly attendant and 
implied expenditures ? 

Mr. TUCKER. I am very much pleased, sir, to respond, as I shall 
do before I am done fully, I think, to the elaborate question of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. HOAR. I thank the gentleman for the courtesy with which he 
has allowed me to put the question. 

Mr. TUCKER. The gentleman need not thank me. I will always 
extend the same courtesy to any gentleman in this Hall. Now, sir, 
there is one element which is wanting as a basis for the whole hy- • 

pothesis of the gentleman from Massachusetts. I would say that it is 
a substantive element, except that it is an adjective; it is the word “na¬ 
tional.” I want the learned gentleman from Massachusetts to point 
out to me—and I will give him until night to do so—the word “na¬ 
tional” in respect to power or in respect to anything else in the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States. 

Mr. HOAR. The powers to levy war, to conclude peace, to estab¬ 
lish commerce, imply a nation in every line where they are granted. 

. Mr. TUCKER, if that, Mr. Chairman, is what the gentleman calls 
national power, very well. I understand him now. The gentleman 
quotes the power to levy war. By the by, there is no such power. 

There is the power to “ declare ” war, (I desire to be a little accurate,) 
and the power “ to raise and support armies.” 

Mr. HOAR. We can levy war after we declare it. 

Mr. TUCKER. That word “levy,” however, is not in the Consti¬ 
tution. The Constitution also gives the power to Congress— 

To provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regula¬ 
tion of the land and naval forces. 

That covers the whole of the question which gentlemen have some¬ 
times asked me: “ How can yon lire a salute ?” It can be done under 
the power of Congress— 

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him 
for a moment ? I find in the letter of George Washington- 

Mr. TUCKER. I would willingly yield to the gentleman, but I 
hope it will not come out of my time, for I have a good distance to 
travel yet. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I merely desire to call his attention to the let¬ 
ter of George Washington transmitting the Constitution to Congress^ 
in which the Congress is called a national government. 

Mr. TUCKER. I know tliqt. What I said was that the word is 
not in the Constitution. The gentleman has not found it there. He 
finds it outside of the Constitution. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. In the letter of the man who made it. 

Mr. TUCKER. That man did not make it. No man made it. And 
the Federal convention did not make it. If the gentleman wants to 
know who made it, I say the States made it. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Does not the Constitution declare— 

We, the people of the United States? 

Mr. TUCKER. I am not to be betrayed now into a discussion of 
that old question. 



7 


Mr. HOLMAN. It is an old question no doubt, and a question that 
lies at the foundation of this nation. The language is: 

We, tlie people of the United States, * * * do ordain and establish this Con¬ 
stitution for the United States of America. 

Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, nothing in the world would gratify 
me more than to discuss this question if I had time. I feel that upon 
this question I would like to have inquiries made of me on all sides; 
for I really think, from the stand-point I occupy, I could answer them 
successfully; but my friend from Indiana will excuse me if I do not 
go into that question. But if at any future period he desires to dis¬ 
cuss it, I will be ready for that discussion. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I did not intend to interrupt the gentleman, and I 
beg his pardon. 

Mr. TUCKER. Now, sir, m reference to the power to pass this bill 
there is one phrase which is greatly relied upon ; and if I can show 
that it fails to give constitutionality to this bill, then I think I will 
have cleared up all difficulties. Gentlemen have said that there is 
power given to Congress “to provide for the common defense and 
general welfare.” I deny it in toto. I say there is no grant of power 
to provide for the common defense and general welfare. The language 
of the Constitution in connection with that phrase, its origin and adop¬ 
tion into the Constitution, and the debates in the Federal convention 
show conclusively that-they indicate the object of the previously dele¬ 
gated tax power, and are not in themselves a substantive grant of 
power. This has been shown by what was said by my able friend 
from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Cochrane.] He showed that Judge Story 
had interpreted the clause as if the words “in order” were inserted 
before the words “ to pay debts,” &c.; so that the clause would read: 

Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, 
fin order] to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general wel¬ 
fare ; * * * blit all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout 
the United States.—(Constitution United States, article 1, § 8.) 

That this is the true interpretation will appear from the grammati¬ 
cal construction of the sentence. It consists of three branches: the 
first as to laying and collecting, the second as to paying debts and 
providing for common defense and general welfare, and the third a 
qualification on the power in the first branch of the sentence.. To 
suppose the learned men of the convention would have interjected as 
a substantive poicer the words in the second branch of the sentence, 
and then in the third branch qualified the first branch, would be to 
attribute to them a lamentable lack of knowledge of the rules of 
grammar and of style. 

Hence the usual and generally-conceded construction of the second 
clause has been that it is attached to the first clause as a definition 
of the objects of the tax power, limiting its use only to such objects, 
and that the second clause cannot be fairly held to contain a new and 
substantive grant of power. 

Now, sir, it is a very curious fact (and I beg to call the attention of* 
the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts to it) that this clause,. 
“ to provide for the common defense and general welfare,” finds its; 
origin in a Constitution which confessedly gave so little power to. 
Congress that Congress had to beg from the States additional grants, 
of power in order to perpetuate its own frail and precarious existence.. 

You will find that in three clauses of the Articles of Confederation^ 
not adopted finally until March, 1781, and which were in force there¬ 
after until the adoption of the Federal Constitution in 1789, the wordst 
are to be found. Tims in the eighth article, the following words oc-~ 


8 


cur: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall he incurred 
for the common defense or general welfare * * * shall be de¬ 

frayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the 
several States,” &c. The same phrase occurs in two other clauses of 
the same instrument. 

Now, sir, if these words give the power which gentlemen claim they 
give under the present Constitution, how was there any lack of power 
in the old Congress of the Confederation ? And yet its lack of power 
was so notorious, so inconvenient, and so alarming that Congress 
came again and again to the very footstool of the States and begged 
for additional grants of power to save the Confederation from perish¬ 
ing. 

When, afterward, these words were transferred from the Articles 
of Confederation into the Federal Constitution they were brought 
with their original meaning, which cannot be changed without vio¬ 
lating well-settled principles of interpretation and the dictates of 
common sense. In their original use they did not define a grant, but 
the objects of a previous grant of power; and, when put into the 
present Constitution in a like connection to the same power as when 
originally used, we are bound to refer them to the previous grant of 
the tax power as merely defining the object and purpose of its dele¬ 
gation, and they cannot now be interpreted to constitute a separate 
and distinct grant of power. 

But, sir, I am not left upon this subject to grope in the dark and 
without authority. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coch- 
kane] was on the same track'as myself, and he has quoted the language 
of Mr. Madison as authority. I quote it for a higher purpose. I quote 
it, sir, because it is found in The Federalist, a work written in order to 
induce the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It is, therefore, not 
only a contemporaneous exposition, but more. Gentlemen on the other 
side must concede that it was not only a contempore exposition, but 
an exposition held out as an inducement to the people to adopt the 
constitution. If you adopt a different interpretation of its words 
from that put upon them by Madison, you will commit a fraud upon 
the people who adopted them, upon a false representation of their 
meaning. 

Now, what does Mr. Madison say? I read again the passage read 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania this morning, and I beg atten- 
tionffo it. I read from the forty-first number of The Federalist; 

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation have grounded 
a very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. 
It has been urged and echoed that the power “ to lay and collect taxes, duties, im¬ 
posts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and gene¬ 
ral welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise 
every power which may be aliened to be necessary for the common defense or gen¬ 
eral welfare. No stronger proof could be given o'f the distress'under which these 
writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. 

The committee will observe that what Madison calls a misconstruc¬ 
tion to which no worthy objector should stoop is the very construc¬ 
tion to which gentlemen now resort in order to give a force to these 
words, which, before the Constitution was adopted and in order to 
secure its adoption, Madison assured the people it was not suscepti¬ 
ble of. 

Now see what lie further says : 

Had no other enumeration or definition of the power of the Congress been found in 
the Constitution than the general expression just cited, the authors of the objection 
might have had some color for it, though it would have been difficult to find a reason 
for so awkward a form of describing to legislate in all possible eases. A power to 


9 


destroy tlie freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of 
descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the 
terms “ to raise money for the general welfare.” 

But what color can the objection have when a specification of the object alluded 
to by these general terms immediately follows, and it is not even separated by a 
larger pause than a semi-colon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought 
to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one 
part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning, and 
shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the 
clear and precise expresssions be denied any significance whatsoever ? 

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted if these 
and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power ? Nothing 
is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase and then to explain 
and qualify it by a recital of particulars. 

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify 
the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is ail 
absurdity which we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors 
of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of 
supposing, had not its origin with the latter 

The objection here is the more extraordinary as it appears that the language used 
by the convention is a copy from the Articles of Confederation. The objects of the 
union among the States, as described in article 3, are. “ Their common defense, se¬ 
curity of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.” The terms of article 
8 are still more identical. “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall 
be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United 
States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” &c. A similar 
language again occurs in article 9. Construe either of these articles by the rules 
which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in 
the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what 
would have been thought of that assembly if, attaching themselves to these, general 
expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their im-, 
port, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense + 
and general welfare ? I appeal to the objectors themselves whether they would 
in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they 
now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its 
own condemnation. 

Now, sir, there is the language of Mr. Madison before the Constitu¬ 
tion was adopted. He put his emphatic reprobation upon any attempt 
before the Constitution was adopted and afterward to give to these 
words “general welfare” auy meaning which would give unlimited 
powers to Congress, or any other meaning than merely to declare the 
object of the previous grant of power. 

I ask, is it fair to give to them now a meaning which the people were 
then assured they could not bear, and on which assurance the people 
waived the objection and ratified the Constitution t 

Now it is a remarkable fact that, in the convention which formed 
the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, whose early fate was a cause 
of lament at least to one portion of the old federal party, proposed, as 
Mr. Madison reports it, that Congress should have power “ to pass all 
laws which they shall judge necessary to the common defense and 
general welfare of the Union.” I hope the advocates of this measure 
will hear this ; for the proposition made by Hamilton in reference to 
the powers of Congress, and which was rejected, is your only show of 
authority to pass this centennial appropriation. Mr. Hamilton pro¬ 
posed that Congress should have power to pass all laws which they 
should judge necessary to the common defense and general welfare of 
the United States. Now suppose that proposition had been adopted 
in that form. But, instead of being adopted, it was rejected, and the 
present formal enumeration of powers was inserted in lieu of this gen¬ 
eral and sweeping clause. 

If this Congress lias the sweeping power to provide for the general 
welfare and to do whatever it may judge to be necessary therefor, 
this Government becomes at once vested with unlimited power. We 
may then throw up our hands and never say again that Congress has 


10 


not the power to do anything it pleases. I know no other limitation,, 
no other breakwater to the unrestricted authority of Congress to ab¬ 
sorb all the reserved powers of the States and to become a central¬ 
ized despotism, if such a construction of these words be admitted. 
My only hope to arrest consolidation is in limiting the power of Con¬ 
gress to the specifications of the grants contained in the Federal Con¬ 
stitution. 

But gentlemen, despairing of finding any particular clause of the 
Constitution for their purpose have asked me how we could build 
this beautiful Dome to the Capitol. Now, if gentlemen will read the 
Constitution of the United States, and study it, and, as the prayer- 
book says, “ inwardly digest it,” they will find this provision in the 
sixteenth clause of the eighth section of article 1 of the Constitution: 

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not 
exceeding ten miles square), as may, by cession of particular States, and the ac¬ 
ceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and 
to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legisla¬ 
ture of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, 
arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. 

Thus there is a clear implication of a grant of power to erect a 
capitol. But gentlemen say, “ Why didyou not build a brick building ? 
Would not that have done?” Well, I might say, why did you not 
build it of weather-boards ? Somebody else might say, “ Why did you; 
not build merely a log house ? Why do you not live like the old pa¬ 
triarchs, in tents ? What is the use of having any house at all ?” I 
answer that the power being given to build “ needful buildings,” the 
discretion as to what is the necessity of the Government is of course 
left to Congress. And in reference to tha*t I will answer, as poor old 
Lear did to his miserable daughters when they undertook by reasoning 
to deprive him of his royal dignities and reduce him to dependence 
upon the mercies of “a thankless child:” 

‘ 1 0, reason not the need: 

* * * * 

Allow not nature more than nature needs, 

Man’s life is cheap as beast s.” 

And when gentlemen ask how these pictures can come here, I will 
say to them that if they will read the later decisions of the higher 
courts of Great Britain they will find that the doctrine held by those 
courts is that pictures and statuary, intended as parts of the general 
plan of a building, are a part of the realty. Pictures are fixtures, and 
are as much needed to a public building as a cornice, a portico, or a 
dome. That is the way in which the picture of George Washington 
is constitutionally a part of this Capitol—this needful building. I 
venture further to say to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Garfield,] 
who spoke on that question the other day, that Washington, in the 
eye of the law, was a perjured rebel. As he was an officer in His 
Majesty’s army, I take it for granted that he had sworn to serve the 
Crown faithfully, and afterward he went into rebellion. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Did Washington hold a commission in the British 
army when the war of the Revolution broke out ? 

Mr. TUCKER. No. 

Mr. GARFIELD. That is the point. 

Mr. TUCKER. Then his oath of allegiance held good only so long 
as he held a commission ? 

Mr. GARFIELD. When his commission expired. 

Mr. TUCKER. When he resigned. 

Mr. GARFIELD. He did not resign. 


11 


Mr. TUCKER. He did resign. 

Mr. GARFIELD. He was not an officer in the Army at the time. 

Mr. TUCKER. He did resign; the gentleman does not know tho 
history of his own country. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GARFIELD. Did he resign to take service against the crown ? 

Mr. TUCKER. O, no. But he resigned, and afterward took serv¬ 
ice m the rebellion. When the gentleman was speaking of perjury 
the other day he spoke of those in the South who resigned and after¬ 
ward took service in the civil war on the confederate side. 

Mr. GARFIELD. My friend will allow me to correct him. I did 
not speak of those who resigned their commissions and afterward took 
service against the Union. I spoke of those who yet being under oath 
contemptuously struck against us without resigning, as many of them 
did, with their oaths still on their souls. 

Mr. TUCKER. I do not know of any such persons. If the gentle¬ 
man had the other day so qualified his remark as he has explained it 
to-day, I would not have now referred to him. My only vindication 
now—I need no vindication, for it is in my own conscience—my rea 
son for referring to what he said was that I represent on this floor a 
little town where sleep the remains of one of the noblest Americans 
that ever trod its soil. He sleeps in death, and no dishonor can ever, 
expressly or by implication, be cast upon that honored grave that the 
representative of that district will not rise here and repel it. 

Now to come back to the question about the pictures here, from 
which I have been led away, (I do not say intentionally.) According 
to the decisions of the highest courts, as I have said, these pictures are 
fixtures, and therefore they are a part of this building. What is a 
needful building therefore involves the question, what fixtures are 
needful to make it a nroper place in which to hold the sessions of the 
Congress of the United States ? Upon that question Congress has a 
discretion on which the Constitution puts no limit. 

Somebody has asked about ambassadors; I think somebody on the 
street the other day asked me the question. I do not know that it has 
appeared in this debate. What authority was there for expenditures 
for the entertainment of the Chinese and Japanese ambassadors ? I 
will say to gentlemen that if they will read the Constitution carefully 
they will find that power is given in it to the President of the United 
States “to receive public ministers and ambassadors .”—Constitution 
United Slates, article 2, § 3. 

Then the power is given to Congress— 

To pass all laws necessary and projier to carry into execution the foregoing 
powers— 9 

That is, the powers granted to Congress— 
and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United 
States or in any department or officer thereof. 

So that the power of Congress to pass a law necessary and proper 
for giving the President authority to receive ambassadors in an ap¬ 
propriate way is clearly within the very letter of the Constitution. 

Now I look at another point. One gentleman asked about the ex¬ 
ploration of the Polar Sea, the observation of the transit of Venus, and 
the support of a Government Observatory. These things are clearly 
done under the power to provide and maintain a navy, because the 
provision and maintenance of a navy require that these scientific 
matters as to the geography of the earth and the celestial mechanism, 
having obvious relation to the navigation of the great deep, may be 
known, in order that our Navy may traverse the seas and oceans of 


12 


tlie world safely to itself, and as a security to our vast foreign and 
home commerce. The exploration of the Polar Sea is legitimate either 
under the power to provide and maintain a navy or the power to reg¬ 
ulate commerce with foreign nations. Wherever the enterprise of 
American seamen carries them, there must be safety for the Navy of 
the United States, and it is the business of the Government to protect 
the American shipper the world over from the dangers incident to 
those who do business on the great waters. 

Mr. BAKER, of Indiana. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him 
a question ? 

Mr. TUCKER. Certainly. • 

Mr. BAKER, of Indiana. Does the gentleman deny that the peo¬ 
ple of the United States constitute, one nation and the Government 
thereof a national government? 

Mr. TUCKER. O; well, sir, that is not a centennial question. 

Mr. BAKER, of Indiana. Does the gentleman object to answering 
the question? 

Mr. TUCKER. I do, sir, object to answering it now. 

Mr. BAKER, of Indiana, Ah! 

Mr. TUCKER. Let me tell the gentleman that if he supposes there 
is any question which he can put to me that I will seek to evade, he 
is vastly mistaken. 

Mr. BAKER, of Indiana. Then I should be glad to have the gen¬ 
tleman answer my question. 

Mr. TUCKER. Well, sir, the gentleman cannot put me to an answer 
except by my courtesy. 

Mr. BAKER, of Indiana. I did not desire to do so. 

Mr. TUCKER. Knowing my rights on that point, I am not to be led 
away from the subject under discussion to answer*what to me appears 
to be an idle question in respect to the present debate, 

Mr. BAKER, of Indiana. I did not intend to divert the gentleman 
from the subject. 

Mr. TUCKER. Now, Mr. Chairman, something was said the other 
day about these grants of public lands for educational purposes. My 
friend from New York, [Mr. Hewitt,] if he will permit me to call 
him so—I will call him so whether he permits it or not—said some¬ 
thing yesterday about this Government being confessedly an educa¬ 
tor of the people. Confessedly! Confessedly by whom? I never 
confessed it. I not only do not confess it, but I deny it in toto. 
What! is it pretended that this Government can intrusively control 
the common schools of every State of this Union ; that it can enter 
your State, sir* or mine, and fix up or manipulate the common-school 
system according to the views of gentlemen here who know and can 
know nothing in the world about them? 

Mr. HEWITT, of New York. I certainly intended to convey no 
such impression. Probably I was very inaccurate in my expression, 
but the only thing I intended to say on that point was that it is one 
jjart of the mission of this Government—a mission which it has here¬ 
tofore in some measure performed—to promote education and things 
looking to the education of the people, but not to take control of the 
subject. 

Mr. TUCKER. I did not mean to say anything that would even 
put my friend to an answer. I only wish to remind my democratic 
1'riends that this Government has no mission except to execute its powers 
and perform its duties under and in subjection to the supreme law of the 
land, the Constitution of the country. In that connection my friend 
referred to grants of land for educational purposes. I think the 


13 


V 


gentleman will lind that wherever that has been a conceded power* 
it has been upon the ground that as the public lands were granted or 
have been acquired for the common benefit of all the States of the 
Union and as the duty is devolved upon Congress of forming out of 
these Territories new States that may come into the Union, it is es¬ 
sential that in building up these nurseries of States—in training that 
foster child of the Government, the Territory, until it shall be a full- 
grown State, it is essential that there should be grants of public 
lands to the Territory for purposes of education; and those grants of 
public lands being made in the State wherein they lie, I suppose it 
was considered fair on the part of the Government that there should 
be grants of land to the old States fCr like purposes, in order thait 
thus the donations of land should be made among the old and new 
/'"'"States for the equal and common benefit of till. That is my answer 
to that question. 

I have done with the constitutional question, as my time will not 
allow me to go into it further. I put it upon this ground : Show me 
the granted power or how this bill is necessary and proper to carry 
into effect au expressly granted power, or before God and under my 
oath I cannot vote for it. 

Talk about sentimental patriotism! I have as much of it as most 
people, but my sentimental patriotism will not allow me to trifle with 
the solemn obligation I took at the Speaker's desk when I was sworn 
in as a member of this House. 

Now, sir, I put it on another ground—and I beg my democratic friends 
around me to hear me, and I beg the gentlemen on the republican side 
of this Chamber to hear me—I put it on the ground that the only limit 
to this growing corruption in the country is a limitation upon the power of 
the Government. If you would advertise to this country that any 
scheme that a plausible committee or commission can induce gentle¬ 
men to strain themselves up to the point of believing to be Hor the 
general welfare is open to the exercise of power by this Congress, I 
tell you, sir, it will be an advertisement for jobbers; and the lobby 
will be so filled that its agents u will push us from our stools," and 
drive its members from this House. But whenever it comes to that 
the people of the country will say, thank God, they shall not sit here 
any longer! Whenever you claim power to do anything which you 
may judge for the general welfare, you proclaim to the country and 
to all its schemers and jobbers this invitation : “Have any of you 
any scheme you think for the general welfare ? If so, bring it for¬ 
ward!" There will be no lack of them, sir, and the lobbyists out 
there will corrupt this body if it is corruptible. Your credit mobiliers, 
your railroads schemes, and all youf other thousand plans for plunder 
upon the public Treasury and upon the tax-paying and the tax-bur¬ 
dened people of the*land will be without remedy. Th^re is only one 
remedy, and that is to limit power; but there is no limitation of power, 
if this Government can do anything it pleases upon the ground of 
“ general welfare." 

Mr. Chairman, I will not trespass upon the patience of the House 
further than to say this, that in every country there may be an ulti¬ 
mate analysis of all its great interests into two classes: the tax-con¬ 
sumer and the tax-payer, and as Lord Bacon once said about the wolf 
and the sheep, “The sheep are never too many for the wolf;" so you 
will find tiie multiplication of jobs under your indefinite and unlim¬ 
ited claim of power will never be too great for the tax-consumer. The 
man who feeds at the Federal crib does not care how much taxation 
is wrung from the pockets of hard-working people at home so he ia 
filled and he is fattened. 


14 


I believe tlie mission of this Government at this time is economy, 
retrenchment, and reform. I know there is nothing in the world so 
hard as to make an available speech for economy against sentimental 
patriotism. Gentlemen who are here representing tax-paying con¬ 
stituents are exceedingly liberal with other people’s money, and en¬ 
tirely opposed to economy when the expenditure does not touch their 
own pockets. I believe we have come to that period of time in the 
history of this Government when it becomes us to put the brakes 
down and to call a halt in lavish expenditure. And if the tax upon 
my constituents is only one cent more, and is imposed to carry out an 
unconstitutional scheme—I will not say job, but to carry out an un¬ 
constitutional scheme—I will remember the adage that “it is the 
last feather that breaks the camel’s back j” and I for one shall Vote 
against it. 

But my friend from New York [Mr. HewittJ said it is a very little 
tax, only three and a half cents; and my friends all around me re-echo 
the cry, only three and a half cents per capita. My friend before me 
from Illinois, who belongs to that department in this aviary in which 
we are assembled denominated the spread-eagle, and who delivered 
so fine a speech this morning, asks “ Where is the man who will not 
give three and a half cents for the glory and honor of his country?” 
[Laughter.] Why, sir, that is all very fine, but I will remind my 
friend and I will remind this House of those most eloquent words 
uttered by one of the most eloquent men who ever spoke the English 
tongue, in his great speech on American taxation. I will remind them 
that Edmund Burke said “No man ever doubted the commodity of tea 
would bear the imposition of three pence.” “Would twenty shillings,” 
said he, “ have ruined Mr. Hampden’s fortune ? No, but the payment 
of half twenty shillings on the principle it was demanded would have 
made him a slave!” And I say, sir, to make me or my constituents 
pay one cent upon the principle this bill demands—that is, that you 
can go outside of the Constitution to do it—will make my people 
slaves. And Edmund Burke added that it was not the weight of the 
duty but the weight of the preamble that claimed the right to impose 
it that the Americans were unable and unwilling to bear. That is 
the principle here. I do not care about three and a half cents, but I 
will tell my friend from New York that he cannot assure me or this 
country that when he gets his scheme in for three and a half cents 
some one else may not come the next day and say, “We also want to 
have a big show down at Yorktown, or we want to have a great show 
at Bunker Hill or Chicago. [Laughter.] 

Well, why not have a great show at Chicago? “O, you have got 
no constitutional power.” “Ah', none at all? You passed the cen¬ 
tennial bill yesterday. Show what is the difference between the two. 
It will be o^ly three and a half cents more. That would not hurt 
anybody.” But another comes along and says, “I will not let that 
scheme get through unless mine gets througlq too, and mine will only 
be three and a half cents more.” It is well, Mr. Chairman, to re¬ 
member the canny Scotch proverb, “ Monie a mickle maks anmckle.” 
It is the accumulation of the little expenditures that makes up the 
burdens which oppress the people of the country and paralyze their 
industries. 

You have declared in a late resolution with great unanimity on the 
other side of the Chamber, and with some dissension on this, that 
subsidies to private corporations are a thing we are too pure to indulge 
in. But yet, sir, so soon as a private corporation comes here and asks 
a subsidy for its enterprise, because it calls itself a centennial corpor- 


-ation, and talks spread-eagle and sentimental patriotism, we say, “ O, 
it would be unpatriotic to refuse it.” There is logic for you ! 

Now, sir, I am opposed altogether to splendid governments. It is 
old-fashioned, sir, to say it; but I am old enough to be old-fashioned. I 
am opposed to a splendid government, and to a squalidly poor people. 
I am opposed to seeing the tax-consumer reveling in palaces and in 
luxury while I hear the wail of woe that conies from this tax-bur¬ 
dened people all over the land. I am opposed to it. It is the mission 
of this House, it is the mission of my political friends around me here 
to say, This thing must and shall cease. Right here and now, upon 
the altar of what we believe to be our duty to our people, we will 
immolate even this sentimental patriotism, and in doing it we will 
go back to the simple virtues and habits and customs of our fore¬ 
fathers a hundred years ago. We will go back to obeying the law, 
and will learn the lesson which the good book teaches. 

When Saul, the King of Israel, was ordered by the God of Israel to 
destroy the whole of a.particular nation, and all their wealth and pride, 
in order that there might be no plundering, (for there were plunderers 
and jobbers in that day, too, I have no doubt,) he determined to save 
the best of the cattle and the best of the flock, and to do honor to God, 
which was doing honor to theocratic patriotism, by making great sac¬ 
rifices on the altars in the temple. When Samuel, the prophet, came 
and saw it, Saul boasted of what he had done for the glory of God and 
the honor of his country ; and sought thus to propitiate his approval 
and avoid his rebuke. But Samuel met him with these solemn words: 
“Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat 
of rams! ” To obey the Constitution of the country is better than im¬ 
molations to sentimental patriotism ; and Almighty God and ourpeople 
will be better satisfied with obedience than with our splendid cere¬ 
monial. Can we justly put more burdeus on this people ? 

Now, on this subject, I have here what is fitted to my hand in the 
message of the present governor of New York, who makes a statement, 
and I have no doubt it is accurate, showing the large increment of 
taxation in this country in the last twenty years. 

He shows that in 1850 the sum total of the taxation of all kinds, Fed¬ 
eral, State, and municipal, was $83,000,000 ; in 1860 it was $154,000,000; 
in 1870 it was $730,000,000. Thus while the tax per capita was $3.57 in 
1850 and $4.80 in 1860 it was in 1870 $18.91 per head. And gentlemen 
talk about increasing it! Now, I am not prepared to do that thing, and 
I cannot. Gentlemen may do so who represent wealthy constituencies 
in the North and West. Chicago, I have no doubt, is rich enough to 
send amillioif and a half^o the Centennial. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Several Members. Go on. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York, obtained the floor. 

Mr. TUCKER. I ask the gentleman from New York t'o yield to me 
for a single moment. There were some other views I desired to ex¬ 
press, and to ask leave to print them. 

Mr. COX. I ask that the time of the gentleman from Virginia may 
be extended, as he has been interrupted by gentlemen on the other 
side. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope there will be no objection to the gentle¬ 
man’s time being extended. 

Mr. TOV^NSEND, of New York. I have no objection, if it does not 
cut me off. 

Mr. KASSON. I hope the gentleman will indicate what extension 
of time he wants. It is important that some limits should be put 


1G 


upon tlie debate, as there are so many names on the list of gentlemen 
desiring to speak. 

Mr. TUCKER. I think I will complete what I wish to say in ten 
minutes. 

Mr. BANKS. I move that the gentleman’s time be extended fifteen 
minutes. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

Mr. TUCKER. I am very much obliged to the gentlemen on the 
other side who are under no obligations to me of a personal or politi¬ 
cal character, and to my friends around me, for this extension of 
time. I shall not, I hope, misuse the indulgence which the House 
has shown me. 

Now, sir, in reference to this whole matter, I have to say that we 
need, as is urged upon us by the Secretary of the Treasury and by 
the President of the United States, in order to resume specie payments, 
that there shall be a surplus in the Treasury, arising from economy in 
the administration of public affairs. 

What this country needs for its prosperity is that the obstruction 
of taxation should be taken off from the wheels of enterprise. I say, 
therefore, that just here we must practice economy; practice it in 
reference to this bill by denying ourselves the appropriation for this 
great luxury. We must lift the paralysis from tlie limbs of industry T 
and we must accumulate money by economy as a means by which to 
return to specie payments and a sound constitutional currency. 

Now, sir, these rules of economy are often spoken of lightly, and 
almost with derision. But I remember in my readings to have been 
struck with the saying of a French^dng, Louis XII, “ I would rather 
that my courtiers should laugh at my parsimony than that my peo¬ 
ple should weep at my prodigality.” And we had better be subjected 
to the jeers of those who speak contemptuously of our undue econ¬ 
omy than impose additional weights upon an already overburdened 
people. 

Gentlemen say that the Government is committed in this matter. 
I am willing ^to leave that argument where my friend from Pennsyl¬ 
vania [Mr. Cochrane] put it. 

There is not an act of Congress from 1871 down to 1874, as he has 
shown, when Congress has not said and provided that the United 
States are not to be responsible for any part of this expense. In the 
last act passed by Congress on this subject, on the last day of the last 
session of Congress, to be found in chapter 130, section 5, where an 
appropriation is made of $505,000 for the purpose of enabling the De¬ 
partments to take i>art in the Centennial, Lfind these provisions: 

And provided further. That the sums hereby appropriated shall cover the entire 
expense to which the United States Government shall be subjected on account of 
said exhibition, except the sum appropriated in this act for printing the certificates 
of stock of said exhibition; and the board on Executive Departments is forbidden 
to expend any larger sum than is set down herein for each Department, or to enter 
into any contract or engagement that shall result in any such increased expendi¬ 
ture ; and no money shall be taken by any Department for the purposes of this ex¬ 
hibition as aforesaid from any other appropriations except the one hereby made. 

It is true tbis act only applies to tbe Departments and not to tbe 
Centennial Commission; but Congress hedged itself in from all respon¬ 
sibility for any further expenditures. And that is the last act of Con¬ 
gress passed on the last day of the last session. And yet with this 
full in our faces gentlemen are'coming forward at this session asking 
a million and a half. They say, “ We did not cut our coat according to 
our cloth. We spent more money than we ought to have done.” Well, 
sir, that is their own lookout. But they will see that there is power 


PD 3.5 

















































•• 


















• w " * a 






>, 0 ^ 

A V 

4 V v -> '%MV4*r * 4» r & • 

*^0 4^-0 « « * ^ 

O 

■ ^o 0 

0v 



a><* 

* ^ *<? ‘ 



* d>* 

* ♦* % 



« « S 


*fc v 


<r • 



N*> "W// 

k £i 

* * %jP . ^U 

^ p\ v + 1 * B 4 O 

*£ C U + o 

*. ’’W - -" V * 



aVA, 

.* ** *<? . 

V r <, *'TA* G 

,°.V^ ^ y t • 

* & /r/ * 

, i 0v ^ £ . £°* \ 

. 0 si r cv -> 


^ 4 ~ 

o v 



* •y. . 



0 ^ 


..o’ f 0' V, *•'’* ^ 5 .. ^ ‘■•••’ *° 

'®^' -' i ' > '•«-»'*- '* «' -‘>^2&>. ^ A* *** 

• < •* ^ G * 


/ . 
* A <. 

<y c ° N 0 * 





<0 *£ 

* Tx ^ 

«• *Pv 
. ^ 0 

; a *. 

<£. m + ut/v ^ $ °' g> 

< v <p »< i 4 «r 

0 V .r*«^ *> V % *l£Lr+ % 

' ^ .A *VQ|&*r. > 


.• • 
o' 5 1 ‘ 



• A-* 

,* sy '■%. ■%‘WV ■*■ ^ *. 

...S 5 .V * 0 , '• ■ * * A *' . . 




°, ^ : 
° ° 




<s *'•*’" 4 C ’ -*- 

• V c°\^. °o 


o. *o * * «* A 


o ^ A ** 

“ V* ; 

: #*\ °o 



^ Ta >. 

k* ^ A 


■■ " vl j' A 
; aH : 

\- <* ‘-AA* ,0 V -»• 

v^> C 0N0 '<❖ 0 V 

.A ^ r, u . t /t^, -r o 

v; k A- v . vv'^i ^ 7"^ ^ *£>(]■' " ;> , -p 

*. w ^ 

; 4 *-«|^« >? 

-. . -tt</ ,' „l c^ **l ‘ '»* n 0 

<P *■’ A .. °<t> °"° A 



» : ”bv^ c 

^ ^° ^ •■* S y« U r, k» 

a 0 V *•'■«• * 

iP **(Z £'• T> .^ A. V ^ 


J,. 0 ^ : ' W > 4 - 

o* r»^ '% +/*%".** 4 $ 

o H 0 .0 ^f> 1 

*'*P C\ .0 V v v ♦*' 










V * 8 '*, ’ ** <5\ . 9 ^ * * • o* ^ uV s*S r ^t r% 

\p ^JjL 

<K ^ ^ *+smPs <$ ^ °. i/ ^Cv^* 4> ^ 

... ^ °** A <;. *‘ -Cr ’o -o, >' A 

°o * 6 _^ a % % r o^ 6 o»«* ^ 


t + ^ c\ ,> 

V . *°*°° . 

8 4 o A 

A'' 

• ^ A 








* 

* V 

* v % 

•1 

0 



, 0 * G * 

<► 

<£. 


-a 1 <v 0 iV 'Pi *■ 

♦ V. ~ *% l\\ . 0) ' * v <#* «. 

4 ' C* *> V>; - « rs A *. 

"’ A s .. °<- a 0 ' % *••'• .< 

^ ,A % A 

s^A 


o AvP 

* .A*? ''Ca> 

* aj-‘ \K 

G^ \D 



|J U L 7 0 J 


ST. AUGUSTINE 



❖ ,,y '^j. ».^W‘ <^ v %. 

v * '•• s ' 3 ^0 ■'°**’* A <** 

% V C * ttf/rTTsh!* 0 •_ s s$SW' y 

. ^ 6 * *b v om 

^ * '*&/])>&* ^ *° ^ 

A »*o*’ .A % '*»>' A 0 V **.-!•’ A 



_ , 9 ' *> V A' 


* * o. 


* ..-v 





